Where did the laws of nature come from?

[durangodawood]

The gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s. would be the same whether or not we could describe it or not, whether we could put it into numerical symbolism or not. Yes, we put the labels in numerical symbolism on the observation but it is a reality and consistently holds whether or not we observe it. Gravity's behavior that something that free falls accelerates at 9.8 m/s/s is the law that we describe and observe. It is the reality...it is the "law" of gravity that governs how objects will fall all the time, anywhere, whether light or heavy.

What exceptions?

Why are they termed as laws? If the natural phenomena of the behavior obeying certain principles or dictates universally, consistently and proven by millions of experiments was labeled something else what would it be labeled and why? We label in accordance with the language that that is agreed upon no matter what language or culture observes it. Law is something that one is suppose to obey, the laws of nature obey...we obey the laws of nature. Can we violate any of the natural laws that we describe? Can we free fall at a different rate than 9.8 m/s/s? Can we violate the speed of light? If a human is unable to violate or alter any "law" it is truly a law and not just a description labeled a law.

This is something you believe and no one can show us they don't. WE have no reason or no reason has been discovered or proven why the universe is governed by the laws of physics, why there is this order that applies to every avenue we experience...Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Cosmology and so on?

1. Yes, of course we can quantify the effect of gravity in reliable ways.

2. Exceptions to predictability: radioactive decay. Individual decay instances are fundamentally not predictable as far as we know. There may be other examples.

3. I think we call our model-making "laws" because of our inherited presumption that there is a law-giver. So the idea of "laws" is sensible in that context. But scientifically speaking, that context is a presumption.

4. Correct, we cant make matter/energy behave in a way that it cannot behave.

5. If by "law" you mean an unalterable truth we observe about how matter behaves, then, ok, there's "law". But if you mean a rule that has any sort of existence of its own, then no. You cant show that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is what we (our side) tried to explain to you (your side) all over the thread: it does make absolutely no sense to see "laws" independently from "objects" in regard to natural laws.

The valid problem that you simple refuse to adress: if a "natural law" is something that "dictates" how physical elements work... then what does a physical element do without that law?

Exactly. What does a physical element do without that law? Does an object free falling fall at the rate of acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s as we observe or without this law would it free fall at a rate of acceleration of 10.7 m/s/s and then sometimes 5.5 m/s/s and then sometimes 20.5 m/s/s? We can imagine a universe that this might be possible. Why is it not possible?

The distinction that you try to focus on - the "physical" and the "material" and the "mind"... these are just human made up categories here.

Of course they are, we are human beings living in a universe that is mathematically knowable, logically understood and which follows laws that allow that to happen. We humans use laws of logic to make sense of the universe and the order and laws that govern it.

There are "objects", which we can observe and these observations can abstracted as "natural laws".

Is the free falling rate of acceleration abstracted or factual? Truth or an approximate observation of a truth, or just an observation we label law?

It is all these observations, all these combined, that make a "physical object". All the observations that you might not connect to a "single" physical object are in fact only observations of a greater physical object... up to "the universe".

We are human and we do observer and discover. That doesn't mean we make the laws, that we dictate the terms in which the universe works. We label a law as a law due to the experiences of testing and validation of the principles that are consistent within the universe. Without the laws of logic we could not make heads or tails of anything, language or observations.

You just cannot seperate a "physical object" from the "non-physical laws".

Why not? Can you imagine a ball rather than falling down falling up? Does it have to fall down because it is a physical object?

If fear it is just that you don't understand how it solves the question.

What...language differences?

Even if an object is "identical" to another object, it isn't the same object. You agreed to that.

Yes.

An object that can be distinguished from from another object - say, by calling one the "ide in God's mind" and the other "the realization of that idea" means that they are not the same.

An idea in God's mind is not an object. It is not a physical thing. It is a conceptual thing. How can we view an red rose as a concept and as an actual object? The rose is to a human being only that which the mind can conceive. There is the object of the Rose but we don't experience it except in the mind. There is the object of the universe but we experience it with the mind. God's idea or concept of the universe created with the mind can only be experienced by the mind.

But the only "perfect description" of an object is the object itself. All other - concepts, ideas, descriptions - are abstractions in at least some point and therefor lacking.
Thus the "idea" of the universe cannot be the perfect description of the universe.

The object itself is a concept of the mind. In reality then, the object itself is just a concept of reality and has no more of a perfect description than an idea of a object.

So fridges work on what you call "natural laws". They work on observations made and implemented. And they don't go from (simplified, not very scientifically phrased) "from order to chaos. Quite the opposite.

I assume you mean that the parts of the fridge is chaos and they united make order?

Perhaps if you were to explain why you make these statement, instead of just throwing them out and letting me trying to figure what your objections are, we might get better results.

Which statements?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Perhaps you should think about exactly the last sentence.

Any "law" - the laws that are decreed - can be violated. That's why we have terms like "breaking the law" or "law enforcement". Because laws aren't setting a behaviour... they are setting a goal for a behaviour.

Man made laws, but man can not break a natural law. They are not set goals of behavior determined by mankind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. Yes, of course we can quantify the effect of gravity in reliable ways.

Why? Because it is a natural law that gravity obeys. You have not shown why this would not be a natural law.

2. Exceptions to predictability: radioactive decay. Individual decay instances are fundamentally not predictable as far as we know. There may be other examples.

What are you talking about here specifically?

3. I think we call our model-making "laws" because of our inherited presumption that there is a law-giver. So the idea of "laws" is sensible in that context. But scientifically speaking, that context is a presumption.

Now what this says to me is this; God is an outdated concept according to secular materialism so we must remove the term law from all natural physical aspects of the universe so as not to give any credence to that concept. Rather like cutting off the nose to spite the face.

4. Correct, we cant make matter/energy behave in a way that it cannot behave.

So it is a behavior that can not be violated and is constant, consistent and universal...a law.

5. If by "law" you mean an unalterable truth we observe about how matter behaves, then, ok, there's "law". But if you mean a rule that has any sort of existence of its own, then no. You cant show that.

Now what this says to me is that you will go with law as long as there is no lawgiver. But knowing that laws have law givers you wish to pretend that no law in actuality exists.

 

[durangodawood]

....Now what this says to me is that you will go with law as long as there is no lawgiver. But knowing that laws have law givers you wish to pretend that no law in actuality exists.

Back to square one.
I said there may be "law" with some some kind of existence of its own.

What you cannot show is that there must be "law" apart from matter/energy. And since metaphysically existing "law" is an un-necessary add-on to our picture of the universe, I will start with the guess that it does NOT exist... until shown otherwise.

Now, can you show that law itself actually exists?
No.
Its a matter of faith.

 

[durangodawood]

What are you talking about here specifically?

Briefly, from wikipedia:
Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Back to square one.
I said there may be "law" with some some kind of existence of its own.

What you cannot show is that there must be "law" apart from matter/energy. And since metaphysically existing "law" is an un-necessary add-on to our picture of the universe, I will start with the guess that it does NOT exist... until shown otherwise.

There is no evidence that the law is a part of matter/energy. You have no evidence that shows that the laws we observe and label as the Laws of Physics (which by definition would be non-physical/metaphysical by nature) are part of matter/energy. You have no evidence that shows these laws are not necessary for the universe to exist as it does, thus making your claim as they be an add-on unsupported and possibly false as I claim. It is more logical to assume that a logical, mathematical and intelligent mind created laws that govern the universe as spoken of in the Bible than to assume laws that seem apparent, constant and are mathematical coherent and even perhaps necessary exist without metaphysical laws to govern it.

Now, can you show that law itself actually exists?
No.
Its a matter of faith.

Neither of us can actually show that the laws we observe and can't violate are not part of the matter/energy they govern or that they are but in my opinion, it is more consistent with what we find in the universe to conclude that they are products of mind rather than matter. It may be a matter of faith but I think logic rests best on my side of the question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Briefly, from wikipedia:
Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html

Old textbook knowledge reconfirmed: Decay rates of radioactive substances are constant

So although it is impossible to predict when a particular atom with decay, the decay rates of radioactive substances are constant.

 

[Freodin]

Exactly. What does a physical element do without that law? Does an object free falling fall at the rate of acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s as we observe or without this law would it free fall at a rate of acceleration of 10.7 m/s/s and then sometimes 5.5 m/s/s and then sometimes 20.5 m/s/s? We can imagine a universe that this might be possible. Why is it not possible?

In the way you describe it... it is possible and it does happen. The rate of acceleration is not fixed... it is based on the mass of the two objects being attracted. This rate is slower on the moon for example... or even in different places on earth.

But that is the thing you just keep ignoring.
We can imagine a lot of things - many of them "not real". We can 'imagine' a universe where gravity is different. (That does not mean such a universe could exist.)

So you think that this is a sign that these "laws" could indeed be different?

That what about the laws that cannot be different? Can you - can God! - imagine a triangle with 200° sum of angles?

So if humans cannot break the laws of God... is there a Meta-God whose laws God cannot break?

Of course they are, we are human beings living in a universe that is mathematically knowable, logically understood and which follows laws that allow that to happen. We humans use laws of logic to make sense of the universe and the order and laws that govern it.

I beg to differ. Humans make sense of the universe and find out about the "laws"... and discover that all the nice, easy mathematical abstractions that make up our "laws" are at best very good approximations.

Is the free falling rate of acceleration abstracted or factual? Truth or an approximate observation of a truth, or just an observation we label law?

It is an abstraction. We observe, try to get a mathematical relationship from our observations... and if it fits our needs, we keep it.

We are human and we do observer and discover. That doesn't mean we make the laws, that we dictate the terms in which the universe works. We label a law as a law due to the experiences of testing and validation of the principles that are consistent within the universe. Without the laws of logic we could not make heads or tails of anything, language or observations.

Yes, we agree that we humans don't "make" the "laws" of the universe. But we label stuff, and this labeling is based on our culture, our ideas, our superstitions, our worldview... it is not perfect or written in stone. You know that there once was an old greek guy named Heraklit who imagined that all stuff was made up of distinct very tiny particles that couldn't be divided any further? Indivisible - atomos in greek.

We still have particles called "atoms". We talk about atomic clocks and atomic bombs. But we know that these things can be divided... and we know that the whole idea of indivisible particles is basically bunk. Still the name stuck.
It is not different for "Laws of Nature". There was the concept of "given laws". It didn't hold up, but the name stuck.

Why not? Can you imagine a ball rather than falling down falling up? Does it have to fall down because it is a physical object?

That would be fiction. I can imagine a lot of things. I can talk about even a lot more things. But as we have already agreed on: humans do not create reality. Not by imagining... not by "creation".

So yes, the ball has to fall down because it is a physical object. Mass is an attribute of that ball, just like "it's round" is an attribute.

What...language differences?

Yes.
An idea in God's mind is not an object. It is not a physical thing. It is a conceptual thing. How can we view an red rose as a concept and as an actual object? The rose is to a human being only that which the mind can conceive. There is the object of the Rose but we don't experience it except in the mind. There is the object of the universe but we experience it with the mind. God's idea or concept of the universe created with the mind can only be experienced by the mind.

Yes, an idea is not a "physical" thing. But it is an object... a different object.

How "we" can do anything with ideas and concepts and such? Accept that they are abstractions. "The rose is to a human being only that which the mind can conceive."... I agree. It is not the rose itself... it is a representation of the object, and, important!, a lesser representation.
So it is the way with anything "the mind can experience". "God's ideas of the universe" are no exception.

The object itself is a concept of the mind. In reality then, the object itself is just a concept of reality and has no more of a perfect description than an idea of a object.

The object is a concept of the mind? Excuse me... didn't we agree that reality is NOT based on the human mind?

I assume you mean that the parts of the fridge is chaos and they united make order?

No. Fridge makes cold. Cold is order. Heat is chaos. "Nature's way" is equalizing temperatures, not separation into hot and cold. So how the heck does a fridge work? Magic???

Which statements?

Statements like "the way of nature is order to chaos". What do you mean by that?

Man made laws, but man can not break a natural law. They are not set goals of behavior determined by mankind.

Laws are rules that set goals for behaviour. Rules can be broken.

Attributes are something that cannot be broken. It is something that is.

Shouldn't that be a sign that "natural laws" are attributes of objects, rather that rules that are given to them to follow?

 

[durangodawood]

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html

Old textbook knowledge reconfirmed: Decay rates of radioactive substances are constant

So although it is impossible to predict when a particular atom with decay, the decay rates of radioactive substances are constant.

???
My example was about individual atoms.
It was an entirely legit example of "exceptions to predictability", provided per your request.

I know that there are other phenonmena that are predictable.
You dont need to tell me that.

 

[durangodawood]

There is no evidence that the law is a part of matter/energy. You have no evidence that shows that the laws we observe and label as the Laws of Physics (which by definition would be non-physical/metaphysical by nature) are part of matter/energy.....

I dont need evidence that laws are part of matter/energy.
They dont have to be "part of" anything.
I think they are simply our descriptions of how matter/energy behaves.

We observe behavior.
We dont observe laws.
IF we observe laws, then show me laws.
(My guess is you will show me behavior instead).

You have no evidence that shows these laws are not necessary for the universe to exist as it does, thus making your claim as they be an add-on unsupported and possibly false as I claim.....

Yes!
It IS possibly false that "physical laws dont exist".
I already admitted that they might exist.

But you havent proven that they need to exist as some other thing besides our description of the behavior of stuff.
Thats all I'm contending:
We dont know that physical laws have to exist as some 'thing' or even 'idea' in themselves.

 

[durangodawood]

...Neither of us can actually show that the laws we observe and can't violate are not part of the matter/energy they govern or that they are but in my opinion, it is more consistent with what we find in the universe to conclude that they are products of mind rather than matter. It may be a matter of faith but I think logic rests best on my side of the question.

I would love to see the logic.
What Im hearing is mainly that it feels like there should be a mind behind all this.

Thats fine.
I'm all for using intuition as a tiebreaker between undecidable propositions.
But lets call it what it is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

???
My example was about individual atoms.
It was an entirely legit example of "exceptions to predictability", provided per your request.

I know that there are other phenonmena that are predictable.
You dont need to tell me that.

Yes, correct. I'll give you that one.

 

[KCfromNC]

You are free to be satisfied with I don't know, but that doesn't mean that what Christians claim is untrue.

There are lots of totally baseless claims which I can't definitively prove wrong. That doesn't mean I should believe any of them.

Having laws that govern the universe is completely consistent within the Christian worldview and explains the universe having these laws in a logical way.

It is also completely consistent with the view that I created the laws, or the IPU did, or the lamppost outside my house did. It is easy to make up stuff like this.

 

[KCfromNC]

The chemistry laws are well documented as well in psychology and neuroscience, I don't know what exceptions those would entail.

I was thinking of cases where having different levels of understanding of brain function might affect how one behaves, but that's not particularly important.

The behavior is what happens when there is a law that governs how the subject behaves.

Another view is that the laws are human creations which attempt to best model the behavior of the system in question.

That is not what you are saying?

No.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because its easy for it to produce nebulae. So it doesn't need precise conditions as much as it would for life.

It's easy for nebulae to form in our universe because the natural laws have been finely tuned to produce nebulae.

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range,

The same applies to nebulae. The universe has to be just as finely tuned to produce the nebulae that we see.

Not really then why dont we see intelligent life all over the universe like nebulae.

Exactly. If the universe were finely tuned for life then you should see life all over the place. You don't.

It seems the conditions for nebulae are common and happen all over the place.

Which is exactly what you should see in a universe that is finely tuned for nebulae.

For example, in a greenhouse finely tuned for growing orchids, you find the proper conditions for orchid growth throughout the greenhouse. You don't see a greenhouse where orchids can only grow in a tiny, tiny portion of the greenhouse.

But they are rare and just right for life in one place.

Nebulae are not rare, which indicates that the universe was fine tuned for nebulae instead of life.

If there was one nebulae in one place in the universe and one black hole in another place in the universe and they were not existent in any other location because the conditions were not suitable for them then you could say they were rare and fine tuned to exist.

False. You would say that the universe was poorly tuned for nebulae and black holes.

But life needs extra special conditions because you can only find it in one place.

In a finely tuned universe, the proper conditions for life would be found throughout the universe.

Fine tuned means the opposite. It means that the universe has certain conditions that are all geared towards a rare outcome and not a common one.

That is COMPLETELY wrong. That is the opposite of what it means.

 

[stevevw]

It's easy for nebulae to form in our universe because the natural laws have been finely tuned to produce nebulae.

OK so that is more support for design in the universe. I think you are confusing tuned with fine tuning. The difference between the odds for a universe that has tuning or certain conditions to produce nebulae and a fine tuned universe for life is significant. There are over 200 physical conditions that need to be right for intelligent life to exist with some not allowing any fudge factor greater than a hairs thickness. Some only allowing life to be in one place which is earth as far as we know it. The conditions for nebulae seem to allow it in many places and to have varying conditions. Having varying conditions to exist is the opposite of fine tuning which is precise conditions.

The same applies to nebulae. The universe has to be just as finely tuned to produce the nebulae that we see.

Its the difference in the amount of precise conditions and odds that makes the fine tuning for life significant and amazing. I think you are mixing up tuning for anything and fine tuning for something specific.

Exactly. If the universe were finely tuned for life then you should see life all over the place. You don't.

The fine tuning means you are taking things down to a very precise point and not a common point. The more precise the less common.

Which is exactly what you should see in a universe that is finely tuned for nebulae.

For example, in a greenhouse finely tuned for growing orchids, you find the proper conditions for orchid growth throughout the greenhouse. You don't see a greenhouse where orchids can only grow in a tiny, tiny portion of the greenhouse.

Your seeing things from a different view point for what the fine tuning argument states. The green house conditions are tuned to allow not just orchids but many different plants. It also allows other things like bugs, moss, algae, moisture, mist, ect. So you could say the conditions have a fair amount of room to allow for many different things. The conditions dont have to be that specific for orchids alone and the same conditions will allow things like bugs or moss. All these things can go anywhere in the green house and still exist. But say there was a spot where that only supported one thing and that one thing couldn't exist anywhere else. So your missing the point between tuned to exist and fine tuned to exist.

Nebulae are not rare, which indicates that the universe was fine tuned for nebulae instead of life.

AS stated above its the rarity of something that make the odds of it happening a lot less. That makes it harder to produce which means the conditions for it need to be precise or special for it to happen. Thats what we are really talking about the significance of life occurring in the universe at all and only in one spot so far. In fact as far as Ive read nebulae can come in more than one form and there can be different conditions for making different nebulae. So the conditions can vary from one place to another. This gives a broader range for the conditions for nebulae as opposed to the specific conditions needed for life. If you applied your example of nebulae to intelligent life then we should see intelligent alien life in different forms around the universe in many places.

False. You would say that the universe was poorly tuned for nebulae and black holes.

The important word you left out was "fine" as in fine tuned. So the conditions for life are fine tuned which means things have to be refined down to a very specific condition for it to happen.

 

[Gracchus]

It was the author, Douglas Adams, who explained it so simply that even a Ch... child should be able to understand it. He gave the example of a puddle that marveled how closely the depression it sat in was designed for it.
Life occurs on a very tiny mote, in a universe vast beyond comprehension, for a very short time, in a universe of unimaginable age, under conditions so rare they might occur only on one planet in hundreds of trillions. And religious folks seriously think the universe is all about them. It's a good thing that they are so humble, or they might get above themselves.

 

[stevevw]

Ive heard the puddle analogy a few times. Its a popular come back from atheists. It poor analogy and begs the question.
The fine tuning argument speaks about specified complexity and that there is scientific evidence to show there are over 30 physical constants that need to be precise to within a very narrow parameter for life to exist. The puddle analogy just appeals to the naturalistic presupposition that “it just so happens that life is able to exist because the constants are where they should be to permit life.” By assuming that the universe is similar to the puddle, the atheist effectively begs the question, for he is simply assuming what he is trying to argue.

Further, the analogy is weak. The hole symbolizes the universe and the puddle symbolizes humanity. However, the hole does not have specified complexity in the instance of this analogy. Further, there is no evidence given that the universe is anything like the puddle other than a mere assertion of “the universe/puddle can support life/water because that is just the way it is.”
http://answersforhope.org/destroying-the-puddle-analogy/

Any configuration of dirt supports water whereas very, very few configurations of physics can support life. Some skeptical scientists who have studied the fine-tuning explicitly state this analogy “doesn’t hold water” – such as David Deutsch
http://crossexamined.org/mistaken-objections-seek-trivialize-fine-tuning/

 

[The Barbarian]

Old textbook knowledge reconfirmed: Decay rates of radioactive substances are constant

So although it is impossible to predict when a particular atom with decay, the decay rates of radioactive substances are constant.

That's true of any phenomeon, if it happens in large enough numbers. But of course, it's impossible to predict any such event, even if you can accurately predict an average rate.